Volume 61, Issue 5 Page 1147 Stanford Law Review THE LAW, CULTURE, AND ECONOMICS OF FASHION C. Scott Hemphill & Jeannie Suk © 2009 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, from the Stanford Law Review at 61 STAN. L. REV. 1147 (2009). For information visit http://lawreview.stanford.edu. HEMPHILL & SUK 61 STAN. L. REV. 1147 4/25/2009 2:12 PM THE LAW, CULTURE, AND ECONOMICS OF FASHION C. Scott Hemphill* & Jeannie Suk** INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1148 I. WHAT IS FASHION?...........................................................................................1155 A. Status.........................................................................................................1156 B. Zeitgeist.....................................................................................................1157 C. Copies Versus Trends................................................................................1159 D. Why Promote Innovation in Fashion? ......................................................1161 II. A MODEL OF TREND ADOPTION AND PRODUCTION.........................................1164 A. Differentiation and Flocking.....................................................................1164 B. Trend Adoption .........................................................................................1166 C. Trend Production ......................................................................................1168 III. HOW UNREGULATED COPYING THREATENS INNOVATION .............................1170 A. Fast-Fashion Copyists ..............................................................................1170 B. The Threat to Innovation...........................................................................1174 1. Harmful copying.................................................................................1175 2. Distorting innovation..........................................................................1176 * Associate Professor of Law and Milton Handler Fellow, Columbia Law School. ** Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. The authors thank Robert Ahdieh, Yochai Benkler, Johanna Blakley, Rachel Brewster, Vernon Cassin, Glenn Cohen, Bob Cooter, Domenico De Sole, Hal Edgar, Liz Emens, Noah Feldman, Robert Ferguson, Amy Finkelstein, Terry Fisher, Jeanne Fromer, Bill Gentry, Jane Ginsburg, Victor Goldberg, Jack Goldsmith, Paul Goldstein, Jeff Gordon, Laura Hammond, Michael Heller, Lauren Howard, Olati Johnson, Avery Katz, Alon Klement, Meg Koster, Mark Lemley, Larry Lessig, Doug Lichtman, Clarisa Long, Ronald Mann, Sara Marcketti, Martha Minow, Henry Monaghan, Ed Morrison, Melissa Murray, Ben Olken, John Palfrey, Mitch Polinsky, Richard Posner, Alex Raskolnikov, Kal Raustiala, Susan Scafidi, David Schizer, Elizabeth Scott, Steve Shavell, Chris Sprigman, Matt Stephenson, Francine Summa, Cass Sunstein, John Witt, and audiences at Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, the University of Tokyo, and the New Yorker magazine’s 2008 annual conference for helpful discussions and comments. Bert Huang provided constant collaborative advice and support. We thank Sarah Bertozzi, Melanie Brown, Andrew Childers, Jon Cooper, Brittany Cvetanovich, Zeh Ekono, Joseph Fishman, Ilan Graff, Brett Hartman, Andrea Lee, Samantha Lipton, Ruchi Patel, Zoe Pershing-Foley, Miriam Weiler, and Ming Zhu for excellent research assistance, and the staff of the Columbia Law School, Fashion Institute of Technology, and Harvard Law School libraries for their efforts procuring difficult sources. Special thanks to the several dozen stakeholders—in fashion houses, government agencies, industry associations, and law firms—for interviews from which we gained valuable insights on fashion design and the fashion industry. Views and errors in this Article are those of the authors only. 1147 HEMPHILL & SUK 61 STAN. L. REV. 1147 4/25/2009 2:12 PM 1148 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 61:1147 C. Is Piracy Really Beneficial?......................................................................1180 IV. TAILORED PROTECTION FOR ORIGINAL DESIGNS...........................................1184 A. The Scope of the Right ..............................................................................1185 B. Considering Objections.............................................................................1190 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................1195 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................1197 INDEX OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 1. Selected U.S. Litigation Against Forever 21, 2007-2008..................... 1174 Table 2. Selected European Litigation, 2005-2008 ............................................ 1191 Figure 1. Foley & Corinna and Forever 21 ........................................................ 1197 Figure 2. Jonathan Saunders and Forever 21...................................................... 1198 Figure 3. Yves Saint Laurent and Ralph Lauren ................................................ 1199 INTRODUCTION Fashion is one of the world’s most important creative industries. It is the major output of a global business with annual U.S. sales of more than $200 billion—larger than those of books, movies, and music combined.1 Everyone wears clothing and inevitably participates in fashion to some degree. Fashion is also a subject of periodically rediscovered fascination in virtually all the social sciences and the humanities.2 It has provided economic thought with a canonical example in theorizing about consumption and conformity.3 Social 1. U.S. apparel sales reached $196 billion in 2007. The U.S. Apparel Market 2007 Dresses Up . Way Up, BUS. WIRE, Mar. 18, 2008 (reporting estimate by the NPD Group). Among fashion accessories, considering just one category, handbags, adds another $5 billion in sales. Tanya Krim, There’s Nothing “Trivial” About the Purse-suit of the Perfect Bag, BRANDWEEK, Mar. 29, 2007 (reporting U.S. sales exceeding $5 billion in 2005). For comparison, U.S. publishers had net sales of $25 billion in 2007. Press Release, Ass’n of Am. Publishers, AAP Reports Book Sales Rose to $25 Billion in 2007 (Mar. 31, 2008), http://www.publishers.org/main/IndustryStats/indStats_02.htm. The motion picture and video industry had estimated revenues of $64 billion in 2003. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2003 SERVICE ANNUAL SURVEY, INFORMATION SECTOR SERVICES (NAICS 51)—ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR EMPLOYER FIRMS: 1998 THROUGH 2003, at 1 tbl.3.0.1, available at http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/sas51-1.pdf; see also MOTION PICTURE ASS’N OF AM., INC., ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY MARKET STATISTICS 2007, at 3, available at http://www.mpaa.org/USEntertainmentIndustryMarketStats.pdf (reporting U.S. box office sales of nearly $10 billion in 2007). The music industry had U.S. revenue, measured at retail, of about $10 billion in 2007. RECORDING INDUS. ASS’N OF AM., 2007 YEAR-END SHIPMENT STATISTICS, available at http://www.riaa.com/keystatistics.php. Thus fashion is comparable in importance to other core creative industries even if, as seems plausible, some apparel has a lower intellectual property content. 2. See, e.g., LARS SVENDSEN, FASHION: A PHILOSOPHY 7 (John Irons trans., Reaktion 2006) (“Fashion has been one of the most influential phenomena in Western civilization since the Renaissance.”). 3. See, e.g., Harvey Leibenstein, Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers’ Demand, 64 Q.J. ECON. 183 (1950); see also, e.g., Sushil Bikhchandani et al., A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades, 100 J. HEMPHILL & SUK 61 STAN. L. REV. 1147 4/25/2009 2:12 PM March 2009] FASHION 1149 thinkers have long treated fashion as a window upon social class and social change.4 Cultural theorists have focused on fashion to reflect on symbolic meaning and social ideals.5 Fashion has also been seen to embody representative characteristics of modernity, and even of culture itself.6 Indeed, it is hard to imagine a locus of social life—whether in the arts, the sciences, politics, academia, entertainment, business, or even law or morality— that does not exhibit fashion in some way.7 People flock to ideas, styles, methods, and practices that seem new and exciting, and then eventually the intensity of that collective fascination subsides, when the newer and hence more exciting emerge on the scene. Participants of social practices that value innovation are driven to partake of what is “original,” “cutting edge,” “fresh,” “leading,” or “hot.” But with time, those qualities are attributed to others, and another trend takes shape. This is fashion. The desire to be “in fashion”—most POL. ECON. 992 (1992); Philip R.P. Coelho & James E. McClure, Toward an Economic Theory of Fashion, 31 ECON. INQUIRY 595 (1993); Wolfgang Pesendorfer, Design Innovation and Fashion Cycles, 85 AM. ECON. REV. 771 (1995); Dwight E. Robinson, The Economics of Fashion Demand, 75 Q.J. ECON. 376 (1961); George J. Stigler & Gary S. Becker, De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum, 67 AM. ECON. REV. 76, 76 (1977). 4. See, e.g., THORSTEIN VEBLEN, THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS (Dover Publ’n 1994) (1899); Georg Simmel, Fashion, 10 INT’L Q. 130 (1904), reprinted in 62 AM. J. SOC. 541 (1957); see also, e.g., QUENTIN BELL, ON HUMAN FINERY (Shocken Books 1976) (1949); PIERRE BOURDIEU, DISTINCTION: A SOCIAL CRITIQUE OF THE JUDGEMENT OF TASTE (Richard